RE: [Sip] B2BUA & Max-Forwards

[aki.niemi@nokia.com]

Hi, 

inline.

> "I am at the point where I agree with the sentiment raised by others,
> that we should remove the term b2bua entirely from the 
> specification. It
> has caused more confusion than anything else."
> 
> Yes, this is one possibility. An alternative (as I proposed 
> in an earlier
> mail) is to complete the current definition in 3261 saying 
> explicitly that
> :
> 1) A B2BUA handles two or more UAs, each one behaving as UAC/UAS, as
> described in 3261 for UAs

I don't get this.  Does two or more mean, for example, four?  And does that in turn make it a B2BB2BUA? ;)

The only minor clarification I think might be in order for RFC3261 is that it's not just a UAC/UAS concatenation, but a pair of UAC/UAS concatenations.

However, the fact that the traffic in this thread alone equals to a year's worth of emails on the SIMPLE list suggests that no clarification is enough clarification.

So I agree with the other people in that getting rid of the definition altogether is the best option.  After all, if it looks like a UA to the outside world, it must be a UA.

> 2) The SIP protocol specification does not mandate for any 
> behaviour of
> such B2BUA, i.e. on how to "link" (or "concatenate") two or more UAs.

Yes, probably the reason why the definition for a B2BUA is also useless.

Cheers,
Aki
_______________________________________________
Sip mailing list  https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip
This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol
Use sip-implementors@cs.columbia.edu for questions on current sip
Use sipping@ietf.org for new developments on the application of sip